Good customer service from Zeiss.

Torview

Well-known member
My SF`s are back from Germany, they have been away twice, totalling 6 out of this years 7 months, but I guess Covid has been a factor here.

Anyway I wanted to post about the good service I`v received from Zeiss and Gary at Ryston Hall, I was even lent a 10xSF for the duration of the second visit which was more than I expected and have been very grateful for the loan.

I have no idea who has assembled and collimated them but they have done a superb job, I`v had a selection of all the best glass but the centre resolution on them now is amazing, I now have a genuine "cherry", but more than that a cherry in a thousand and a binocular I can never imagine parting with.

Well done Z :t:.

John.
 

tenex

reality-based
Antarctica
Just curious, for what problems did you have to send them back (twice) to end up with this fine result?
 

Torview

Well-known member
Dust inside, more than I found acceptable, seems good now on that front plus a stellar view.

Getting a loaner was a great gesture.
 

Torview

Well-known member
John, sorry if I 'm supposed to know more about this individual instrument, or am just being dense, but what do those quoted words mean? |:S| Thanks. Adhoc

I`m trying to express that to my eyes I now have a truly exceptional instrument, easily the best SF I`v looked through, everything just seems perfectly adjusted.

We do refer to instruments as "cherries" on these pages to express one that stands out, I think Henry reported a "perfect score" from a Nikon scope, I have no objective tests to back up my feelings, just my own subjectivity, but I think its now pretty damn fine.
 

adhoc

Well-known member
I see, John. The dramatic words quoted gave me the idea that there may something even more special with that individual instrument, and that you may have posted on that earlier.

Maybe manufrs. (of "alphas" and binoculars nearing that optical quality) can offer a service at some extra charge (reasonable to them and us) to "fine-tune" their instruments before first sale. Many on this forum will pay that. Some of them will even actually discern the difference!
 

tenex

reality-based
Antarctica
Maybe manufrs. (of "alphas" and binoculars nearing that optical quality) can offer a service at some extra charge (reasonable to them and us) to "fine-tune" their instruments before first sale. Many on this forum will pay that. Some of them will even actually discern the difference!
Unfortunately there would be the implication that alpha Austrian or German (or "German") binos aren't already optimal! One might assume the high price to be justified by such standards already.

Back in the 1970s Leica had some of their SLR lenses (notably zooms) made by Minolta, and what distinguished the Leica-badged items was essentially cherry-picking. I think I once read the rejection percentage but have forgotten... which of course is not so much "fine-tuning" as simple quality control.
 

adhoc

Well-known member
Did think about that. Maybe, to avoid displeasing other buyers (although these really will not care about that difference while using the thing) they could call the package by some un-glamorous "geeky" name (e.g. "Torview Edition" will have the opposite effect)!

I may* have experienced this with a Swaro. An SLC 8x42 specially picked by Swaro. in Austria (for a friend who has a formal connection with them, and also appreciates the difference) showed more detail in dim light than two brand-new 8.5x42 SVs. (*"May" because I'm not sure this is the random norm.)

Looked up the Leica-Minolta collab. on the internet and found a lot of interesting posts in blogs, etc. I cannot imagine the logistics of the cherry-picking process which I did not find explained.
 

etudiant

Well-known member
I see, John. The dramatic words quoted gave me the idea that there may something even more special with that individual instrument, and that you may have posted on that earlier.

Maybe manufrs. (of "alphas" and binoculars nearing that optical quality) can offer a service at some extra charge (reasonable to them and us) to "fine-tune" their instruments before first sale. Many on this forum will pay that. Some of them will even actually discern the difference!

Iirc, Zeiss Jena used to have 1Q symbol on some of their binoculars, with the claim that these were 'Premier Quality'. I've no idea whether there was any selection involved or whether it was simply marketing guff.
 

pbjosh

mildly underwhelming
Argentina
In many industries the idea of "cherry-picking" is widespread. For instance, in semiconductor manufacturing you have built in safeguards and options in a lot of chips and the chips are tested after fabrication, if they fail to test at a certain speed or at full capacity, a portion of the chip is disabled (say, in multi-core / multi-threading processors), or it's run at lower clock speeds until it passes all tests, then can be marketed as a down market product.

I have a hard time envisioning binocular manufacturers trying to sell multiple versions of their alphas based upon quality. It would lead to plenty of confusion and difficulty in distinguishing for consumers, potential for fraudulent reselling, and probably would diminish their brand image.

I think a better bet, from a marketing standpoint, is to try to ship only items that meet good enough internal quality standards such that your brand is known for quality. Overall I think it works for the alpha producers.

For downmarket producers who use OEM production then resell, and purport to "hand inspect every binocular" - I'm not certain that all of them have great reputations for quality.
 

etudiant

Well-known member
In many industries the idea of "cherry-picking" is widespread. For instance, in semiconductor manufacturing you have built in safeguards and options in a lot of chips and the chips are tested after fabrication, if they fail to test at a certain speed or at full capacity, a portion of the chip is disabled (say, in multi-core / multi-threading processors), or it's run at lower clock speeds until it passes all tests, then can be marketed as a down market product.

I have a hard time envisioning binocular manufacturers trying to sell multiple versions of their alphas based upon quality. It would lead to plenty of confusion and difficulty in distinguishing for consumers, potential for fraudulent reselling, and probably would diminish their brand image.

I think a better bet, from a marketing standpoint, is to try to ship only items that meet good enough internal quality standards such that your brand is known for quality. Overall I think it works for the alpha producers.

For downmarket producers who use OEM production then resell, and purport to "hand inspect every binocular" - I'm not certain that all of them have great reputations for quality.

To credibly sell multiple quality levels of a product, there needs to be some verifiable differences.
In the semiconductor industry, it is usually the speed of the chip, in camera lenses and binoculars it would be some sharpness criterion presumably, but I'm unaware of any supplier even attempting to educate the consumer to understand these. Even just posting a minimum optical standard is not done, perhaps because that creates a legal liability without any demonstrable market benefit.
Ideally there might be a business optimizing optics. Lens Rentals for example has an array of tools to evaluate/adjust their supply of rental equipment and has been asked to consider offering that service to other owners.
 
Last edited:

matt green

Norfolkman gone walkabout
At this price point and level I'd be pretty peeved at finding dust in any binocular, let alone having to wait so long to have it rectified.

Also surprised quality control at this price point isn't more consistant, how many SFs do you have to sift through before you get a 'cherrie' ...a thousand?

Matt
 

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
Did think about that. Maybe, to avoid displeasing other buyers (although these really will not care about that difference while using the thing) they could call the package by some un-glamorous "geeky" name (e.g. "Torview Edition" will have the opposite effect)!

I may* have experienced this with a Swaro. An SLC 8x42 specially picked by Swaro. in Austria (for a friend who has a formal connection with them, and also appreciates the difference) showed more detail in dim light than two brand-new 8.5x42 SVs. (*"May" because I'm not sure this is the random norm.)

Looked up the Leica-Minolta collab. on the internet and found a lot of interesting posts in blogs, etc. I cannot imagine the logistics of the cherry-picking process which I did not find explained.

Just to say the SLC 42s (8 and 10) are mighty fine glass and if you have no religious fanaticism for flat vs. pincushion or vice versa I'm not surprised, cherry picking or not. There is also the fact that 8x42 is very slightly 'faster' in low light than 8.5x42 (5.25 as opposed to 4.9) but whether that difference is discernible someone else would have to answer. You probably know a lot more than me about all this in any case, but I thought the two points might be worth making.

Best wishes,

Tom
 

adhoc

Well-known member
Tom, I don't think I know more than you do about any of this!

It is a pity that there isn't (or may be I don't know of?) any formal and scientific, or else credible and informative, series of tests for resolution, except in the "Typo scale" post in this forum linked here (post #23), which Typo/David put up reluctantly on being pressed.

Every now and then, including recently, AllBinos is criticized for not rating sharpness. But somewhere on the internet, either within their site, or in an interview with Arek elsewhere, they explain at length why that is so. I cannot find that text. Even after reading it I thought they should if they could.

In the "Typo scale" I see that the SLCs David tested are sharper than the EL-SV 8.5x42s he tested. I have thought of the EL-SVs as super-sharp because so many people say so in this forum and elsewhere!

In the matter of seeing detail, against an advantage the SLC might have from its wider exit pupil, the EL-SV, of course, has an advantage in the 0.5x higher magnification.

Best wishes. Adhoc.

PS. There is a very important topic there but let it not divert this present thread from its subject!
 
Last edited:

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
Tom, I don't think I know more than you do about any of this!

It is a pity that there isn't (or may be I don't know of?) any formal and scientific, or else credible and informative, series of tests for resolution, except in the "Typo scale" post in this forum linked here (post #23), which Typo/David put up reluctantly on being pressed.

Every now and then, including recently, AllBinos is criticized for not rating sharpness. But somewhere on the internet, either within their site, or in an interview with Arek elsewhere, they explain at length why that is so. I cannot find that text. Even after reading it I thought they should if they could.

In the "Typo scale" I see that the SLCs David tested are sharper than the EL-SV 8.5x42s he tested. I have thought of the EL-SVs as super-sharp because so many people say so in this forum and elsewhere!

In the matter of seeing detail, against an advantage the SLC might have from its wider exit pupil, the EL-SV, of course, has an advantage in the 0.5x higher magnification.

Best wishes. Adhoc.

PS. There is a very important topic there but let it not divert this present thread from its subject!

All points taken, Adhoc - incl. the very important last one about diverting the subject! In a few days I should be able to give some more thoughts of my own on this: I will try either to message you or put up a separate post/thread in the Swaro forum.

All the best,

Tom
 

tenex

reality-based
Antarctica
In the "Typo scale" I see that the SLCs David tested are sharper than the EL-SV 8.5x42s he tested. I have thought of the EL-SVs as super-sharp because so many people say so in this forum and elsewhere!
This was 2017, and one should note David's observation that he found this particular version ("2nd"?) of ELSV the least impressive, and also that other Swaro models he tested on this occasion (EL 32 and SLC) fared better.
 
Last edited:
Top